Impacts of Habitat Restoration and the Status of Avian Communities in Seattle City Parks

CJ Battey • Toby Ross

Yellow Warbler Lesser Scaup

Heermann’s Gull Anna’s Hummingbird

© TIM

BOYER

© D

OU

G SC

HU

RMA

N©

TOM

SAN

DERS

© D

OU

G SC

HU

RMA

N

© D

OU

G SC

HU

RMA

N

3

The Neighborhood Bird Project (NBP) is a citizen science initiative that began in 1994, conceived, developed

and managed by the Seattle Audubon Society. The NBP has two main goals; the first to monitor trends in avian

abundance in Seattle City parks and green spaces. The second aims to empower citizens in becoming advocates for

birds and wildlife habitat in their neighborhoods and communities. Monthly surveys are conducted by teams of

volunteer bird watchers who conduct surveys at eight King County parks and green spaces – Carkeek Park, Golden

Gardens Park, Discovery Park, Seward Park, Genesee Park, Washington Park Arboretum, Magnuson Park and Lake

Forest Park. The data from these surveys provide an insight into the avian diversity and abundance in urban areas

and affords an appreciation of the diversity that can be found in cities given appropriate quality habitat.

Introduction City parks present a unique opportunity for public

engagement with nature, as well as providing habitat

for wildlife and ecosystem services for millions of urban

residents. Within the urban core of Seattle, city parks have

been the focus of many habitat restoration projects to

improve habitat quality and restore degraded lands – efforts

supported by community members, local government, and

nonprofit groups with a shared interest in maintaining

biodiversity and native habitats easily accessible to the public.

Because of this widespread public interest and ease of access,

city parks are excellent targets for involving members of the

public in long-term biological monitoring efforts at a greater

frequency or scale than is typically possible for sites in remote

areas or for surveys conducted by professional scientists.

In order to monitor trends in avian diversity and

abundance over time, and to take advantage of the expertise

and enthusiasm of volunteers from the surrounding

communities, the Seattle Audubon Society started the

Neighborhood Bird Project (NBP) in 1994, with a series of

volunteer-led surveys in Carkeek Park. Surveys have since

expanded to seven other sites, and today are conducted

once a month, year-round, at each of over 200 survey points

distributed in natural or restored habitats in the Seattle area.

Here we present a summary of findings from the first 17

years of NBP surveys in four Seattle City Parks: Discovery

Park, Golden Gardens, Carkeek Park, and Magnuson Park

(see Appendix for maps). The primary goals of this analysis

are (1) to summarize general trends in avian diversity and

abundance over time in the study areas, and (2) to assess

the impact of habitat restoration activities conducted in the

vicinity of survey points on bird communities. We examined

overall trends across all species and parks and a detailed

assessment of observed differences between restored and

non-restored sites.

Bottom left: A volunteer engaged in the Neighborhood Bird Project at Magnuson Park counts gulls and waterfowl on a platform in Lake Washington.

BACKGROUND

4

Survey Methods and Focal Species/GroupsNBP point counts are conducted by teams of volunteers

at eight city parks once each month. Point count stations are

located at least 200m apart at pre-determined locations on

walking loops, with each loop including 5-9 stations. Following

an initial one-minute rest period after arriving at a point count

station, surveyors record the species, number, and mode of

detection (seen/heard/flyover) of any birds observed within

50m of the survey point in a 5-minute period. Surveyors also

record a brief description of the weather and wind conditions

at the time of the survey. Surveys were not conducted during

very poor weather (snow, heavy rain or wind). Data collection

began in Carkeek Park in 1997 and expanded to other sites

through 2003 with the addition of Discovery Park.

Five groups of species were selected for focused analysis in

this report in order to represent communities of particular

interest to biologists and land managers and to allow us

to draw some conclusion about varying trends across taxa

favoring different habitat types. We also selected six focal

species for extra analysis, again to allow inference of trends

in species of particular interest and to draw out patterns

that are not apparent in a generalized analysis of diversity

and abundance. Focal species were also selected to reflect

divergent habitat preferences, in order to provide some

assessment of the affect of restoration in different areas on

different segments of the local bird community. Species

groupings and focal species are summarized in Table 1.

Statistical analyses presented in this report were conducted

in R (version 3.0.2) and visualized with the ggplot2 package.

Geographic analyses and maps were prepared with ArcGIS

(version 10.1, ESRI 2012).

Spotted Towhee Downy Woodpecker

© TO

M SA

ND

ERS

© D

OU

G SC

HU

RMA

N

5

GROUP SPECIES DESCRIPTION

Invasive Species European Starling, Eurasian Collared-dove, House Sparrow

Non-native species known to displace natives, typically targeted for population reduction in restoration projects.

Human-associated Species American Crow, Rock Pigeon, European Starling, House Sparrow

Common urban birds with high populations in disturbed areas.

Riparian Species Orange-crowned Warbler, Wilson’s Warbler, Song Sparrow, Belted Kingfisher, Yellow Warbler, Common Yellowthroat

Species that nest or primarily inhabit brushy habitat adjacent to waterways. Typically targeted for population increase in restoration projects.

Warblers Orange-crowned Warbler, Wilson’s Warbler, Black-throated Gray Warbler, Common Yellowthroat, Macgillivray’s Warbler, Hermit Warbler, Townsend’s Warbler, Yellow Warbler, Yellow-rumped Warbler

Colorful, vocal, long-distance migrants; including many of our most charismatic breeding-season taxa.

Woodpeckers Hairy Woodpecker, Downy Woodpecker, Pileated Woodpecker, Northern Flicker

A diverse family with large populations in many parks – sensitive to a variety of habitat changes.

FOCAL SPECIES PREFERRED HABITAT NOTES

Anna’s Hummingbird,Calypte anna

Generalist Documented local population increases suggest increasing availability of food and habitat, especially in winter.

Savannah Sparrow,Passerculus sandwichensis

Meadows, grasslands, and some shrub-steppe habitats in suitable areas.

A common breeder in open areas of Discovery and Magnuson Parks.

White-crowned Sparrow,Zonotrichia leucophrys

Meadows or grasslands with scattered shrubs, shrub-steppe.

Both wintering and resident populations present throughout the year.

Brown Creeper,Certhia americana

Mature coniferous forest. A little-seen resident species that forages on the trunks of large conifers.

American Crow,Corvus brachyrhynchos

Generalist Perhaps Seattle’s must successful species; abundant in many disturbed habitats.

Wilson’s Warbler,Wilsonia pusilla

Thick mid-succession understory growth orriparian thickets.

A common neotropical migrant and summer resident in suitable habitat.

TABLE 1 Species groups and focal species.

6

Status and Trends in Avian Diversity in Seattle City ParksNBP surveys recorded 232 species in Seattle City Parks over

a 17-year timespan. Total species diversity (the number of

species reported in a given park over the entire study period)

is highest in Discovery Park with 207 species, followed by

Magnuson Park (169), Golden Gardens (123), and Carkeek

Park (114, Figure 1). Mean annual species diversity (the

average number of species reported per year) is 130 species

across all parks from 2003 to 2013, with individual parks

ranked from Magnuson (87 species per year) to Golden

Gardens (48 species per year).

To assess general trends in avian diversity and abundance

across time, and to establish a baseline for continued

long-term study of the impact of restoration activities, we

focused on two measures: annual species diversity (the

number of species recorded in a park in a given year) and

mean abundance (the average number of birds recorded

per station per survey; this can also be thought of as the

frequency of occurrence). As a simple test of change over

time, both measures were plotted by year and fit with a linear

model. This allows us to infer relative rates of change of the

populations of different species within the parks (see Figure

2). Separate models were applied before and after 2003 for

focal species and species groups analyses, as the addition of

the large number of survey points in Discovery Park that year

introduced new habitat diversity into the dataset and makes

direct comparisons with the abundance and diversity prior to

2003 unreliable for most species.

Our analyses of the NBP data found suggestive trends of

decreasing species diversity through time in most locations

surveyed – on the order of 1 fewer species per year across

all parks – but this pattern was not strongly supported by

linear models (Table 2, Figure 3). Of the four parks assessed,

all but Discovery Park showed slightly decreasing species

abundance, but none of the models explained more than

20% of the variation in the data, suggesting that documented

trends in species diversity reflect random variation (or at

least nonlinear change over time) rather than any consistent

single pattern of change over the study period. Furthermore,

the trend towards decreasing diversity over time disappears

when the unusually low diversity numbers for 2012 – when

fewer surveys were completed – are removed, suggesting

that variation in survey effort is responsible for much of the

© TIM

BOYER

Citizen science volunteers taking part in the Neighborhood Bird Project at Golden Gardens Park peer into the tree canopy to count birds during a survey.

Brown Creeper

7

-0.12

-0.08

-0.04

0.00

Am

eric

an R

obin

Mew

Gul

lG

reat

er S

caup

Am

eric

an G

oldf

inch

Dar

k-ey

ed J

unco

Red

Cros

sbill

Bew

ick’

s W

ren

Paci

fic W

ren

Ann

a’s

Hum

min

gbird

Gad

wal

lCe

dar

Wax

win

gG

olde

n-cr

owne

d Sp

arro

wRe

d-ne

cked

Gre

beSp

otte

d To

whe

eRe

d-w

inge

d Bl

ackb

irdCl

iff S

wal

low

Hee

rman

n's

Gul

lBa

nd-t

aile

d Pi

geon

Mal

lard

Less

er S

caup

Hou

se S

parr

owRu

by-c

row

ned

King

let

Vio

let-

gree

n Sw

allo

wPi

ne S

iski

nBa

rn S

wal

low

Gla

ucou

s-w

inge

d G

ull

Bush

titA

mer

ican

Wig

eon

Hou

se F

inch

Blac

k-ca

pped

Chi

ckad

eeA

mer

ican

Coo

tA

mer

ican

Cro

wEu

rope

an S

tarli

ngW

este

rn G

rebe

SPECIES

RA

TE

-0.08

-0.04

0.00

RATE

in Mean Per-survey Abundance (2003-2014)AVERAGE RATE OF CHANGE

0

50

100

150

200

Carkeek Park Golden Gardens Magnuson Park Discovery Park

SP

EC

IES

RIC

HN

ES

S

SPECIES RICHNESS BY PARK

FIGURE 1 Number of species recorded in each park

FIGURE 2 Ranked slopes of linear regression lines for mean number of individuals detected per-survey, per-station. Limited to species with mean annual detections greater than 10 and mean rates greater than 0.0075 detections/station/survey/year.

© D

OU

G SC

HU

RMA

N

8

130

140

150

160

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

YEAR

SP

EC

IES

RIC

HN

ES

S

SPECIES REPORTED All Parks

FIGURE 3Annual species diversity over time.

LOCATION

MEAN ANNUAL SPECIES DIVERSITY TREND

SLOPE (SPECIES PER YEAR) R2

All Parks 130.000 Decreasing -1.2 0.019

Discovery Park 78.889 Increasing 1.1 0.058

Magnuson Park 86.667 Decreasing -0.65 0.19

Carkeek Park 54.389 Decreasing -0.3 0.055

Golden Gardens Park 48.222 Decreasing -0.32 0.009

TABLE 2Trends in annual species diversity over time.

Savannah Sparrow

9

decline. Although any decline in species diversity is a cause

for concern, discerning long-term decline from random (or

at least unmeasured) variation is a difficult task even for the

best-designed surveys, and to date the NBP data shows no

strongly supported pattern of change. However, continued

data collection under a comparable protocol will maximize

the value of data already collected and may serve to point out

important trends in species diversity in the future.

Focusing on species groups, the data suggest that invasive

and human-associated species have decreased in relative

abundance while woodpeckers and warblers have increased.

Across all parks, the frequency of invasive birds has declined

consistently since the start of surveys, decreasing from over

3 per survey per station in 1997 to fewer than 1 per survey per

station across all sites surveyed to date in 2014. The frequency

of occurrence of human-associated species has also declined,

while frequency of riparian birds increased steadily prior

to the inclusion of Discovery Park sites in 2003 and has since

held steady. Both warblers and woodpeckers showed slight,

steady increases in frequency of occurrence across all

parks (Figure 4).

Among the focal species studied, Anna’s Hummingbird,

Calypte anna, and Brown Creeper, Certhia americana,

showed the most consistent trends across all parks. Anna’s

Hummingbird increased in frequency roughly 50% from

2004 to 2013 (Figure 5) – an impressive rate of increase

roughly in line with other observed increases in populations

of this species throughout the northwest, likely driven by an

increase in winter food availability from decorative plantings

and hummingbird feeders. Brown Creeper also increased

significantly throughout the study period, though higher

variation in counts of this species meant that the linear trend

explained less of the total variation than was the case with the

Anna’s Hummingbird.

Although the two focal species selected to represent birds

preferring open meadow habitats – White-crowned Sparrow,

Zonotrichia leucophrys and Savannah Sparrow, Passerculus

sandwichensis, – did not show any well-supported linear

trends across all parks, local patterns of abundance were

variable and deserve careful observation as restoration

and maintenance work is ongoing. Savannah Sparrow in

particular is rarely observed in either Golden Gardens or

Carkeek parks, but breeds abundantly in both Magnuson

and Discovery Parks. Since the beginning of data collection

Savannah Sparrow frequency has nearly doubled in

Magnuson Park, but has declined by roughly half in

Discovery Park (Figure 6).

The cause of these local changes in Savannah Sparrow

abundance is not directly addressed by these data, but

differences in the timing and amount of restoration and

land management activities between sites likely plays a role.

As the timing of mowing in grassland habitats in Discovery

Park and its impact on grassland-nesting birds has long been

a point of contention between birders and land managers

at the site, this study’s observation of long-term decline in

abundance should serve as a useful data point in calibrating

further management actions in the area.

© D

OU

G SC

HU

RMA

N

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

2000 2005 2010

YEAR

DE

TE

CT

ION

S/S

UR

VE

Y

Mean Per-survey Abundance

WARBLERS

2

3

4

5

6

2000 2005 2010

YEAR

DE

TE

CT

ION

S/S

UR

VE

Y

Mean Per-survey Abundance

HUMAN-ASSOCIATED SPECIES

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

2000 2005 2010

YEAR

DE

TE

CT

ION

S/S

UR

VE

Y

Mean Per-survey Abundance

WOODPECKERS

0

1

2

3

2000 2005 2010

YEAR

DE

TE

CT

ION

S/S

UR

VE

Y

Mean Per-survey Abundance

INVASIVE SPECIES

10

FIGURE 4 Species group trends in abundance.

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

2000 2005 2010

YEAR

DE

TE

CT

ION

S/S

UR

VE

Y

Mean Per-survey Abundance

ANNA’S HUMMINGBIRD

0.03

0.05

0.07

2000 2005 2010

YEAR

DE

TE

CT

ION

S/S

UR

VE

Y

Mean Per-survey Abundance

BROWN CREEPER

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

2002.5 2005.0 2007.5 2010.0 2012.5

YEAR

DE

TE

CT

ION

S/S

UR

VE

Y

Mean Per-survey Abundance – Discovery Park

SAVANNAH SPARROW

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

2000 2005 2010

YEAR

Mean Per-survey Abundance – Magnuson Park

SAVANNAH SPARROW

DE

TE

CT

ION

S/S

UR

VE

Y

11

FIGURE 5 Anna’s Hummingbird and Brown Creeper change in detection frequency over the survey period.

FIGURE 6 Trends in Savannah Sparrow abundance in Discovery and Magnuson Parks.

12

Impacts of Habitat RestorationGreen Seattle Partnership (GSP) has been conducting

both professional and volunteer-driven habitat restoration

projects throughout the Seattle area since 2004 and currently

organizes ongoing restoration and monitoring projects

within 50m of the majority of survey points incorporated

in the NBP dataset (see Appendix). GSP restoration projects

typically proceed through four phases: 1 – invasive removal,

2 – planting, 3 – active maintenance, and 4 – monitoring

and adaptive management. The vast majority of currently

active restoration zones have yet to proceed to phase 4, and

establishment of stable native communities often takes many

years after the completion of active restoration. Analyses of

restoration outcomes in this report should thus be viewed

as baselines for future research and potential inputs for

adaptive management or project planning, rather than settled

assessments of success in individual areas, as restoration

has yet to be “completed” in most areas covered.

In order to assess the impact of GSP restoration activities

on bird communities, we compared mean abundance (the

average number of individuals per survey) and mean annual

species diversity (the number of species reported annually

per point) among survey points located within 50 meters of

restoration zones in each phase, using a Tukey test to ask if

there is a significant difference in either value across points in

different restoration phases (Figure 7). This analysis found no

significant difference in either diversity or abundance between

points that had or had not undergone restoration, or among

differing levels of restoration point class. Although the data

present some suggestive trends of decreasing abundance and

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4

RESTORATION PHASE (50m RADIUS)

ME

AN

AN

NU

AL

DIV

ER

SIT

Y

SPECIES DIVERSITY BY RESTORATION PHASEMean Per-station Annual

FIGURE 7 Mean species diversity across stations located within 50m of areas at different stages of progress in habitat restoration. Error bars report one standard error.

13

FIGURE 8 Mean species diversity across stations located within 50m of areas at different stages of progress in habitat restoration. Error bars report one standard error.

diversity in phase 3 or 4 zones, this variation is within mean

standard error of phase 1 and 2 zones and is not significant

(p > 0.05) in Tukey tests. It should be noted that this test as

currently employed has limited power because very few of the

zones have proceeded beyond phase 3, and most are in phases

1 or 2. Apparent lower species diversity in phase 4 zones, for

example, is largely driven by just two low-diversity points.

For all NBP survey points adjacent to GSP zones and with

data series extending before the initiation of restoration

activities, we also compared mean abundance and annual

species diversity before and after the initiation of restoration

work and used a paired t-test to assess the significance of any

difference found. This procedure was repeated across species

groups and focal species (Figure 8, Table 4).

We found that mean abundance declined for all species

and groups assessed after the onset of restoration activities,

though only total bird abundance, riparian bird abundance,

and human-associated bird abundance showed significant

differences in a t-test. The decline in human-associated birds

explained roughly three-quarters of the decline in total bird

abundance, which should be viewed as a cautious success

for restoration, as these species are already abundant in

surrounding urban habitats and often outcompete native

species in heavily disturbed areas. The significant decline

in riparian birds is a more worrying sign for the impact of

restoration projects on bird communities, but this drop

was nearly entirely explained by the significant decline in

Song Sparrow populations – likely a reflection of the Song

Sparrow’s success in living with Himalayan Blackberry,

one of the most common invasive species removed during

phase-1 restoration activities.

0

5

10

15

Pre-restoration Restoration in Progress

OB

SE

RV

ED

/SU

RV

EY

/ST

AT

ION

Mean Per-survey Abundance

INVASIVE SPECIES

0

2

4

6

8

Pre-restoration Restoration in Progress

SP

EC

IES

PE

R S

TA

TIO

N P

ER

SU

RV

EY

Mean Annual

SPECIES DIVERSITY

14

PRE- RESTORATION MEAN

ONGOING RESTORATION MEAN

DIFFERENCE t p

Per-survey Species Diversity 5.126 5.307 0.181 1.883 0.063

Annual Species Diversity 6.998 7.966 0.968 1.757 0.082

Total Birds 17.123 14.898 -2.225 3.913 1.75E-4

Riparian Birds 2.175 2.018 -0.157 2.368 0.020

Invasive Species 9.499 7.524 -1.975 1.314 0.195

Warblers 2.000 1.908 -0.093 0.329 0.743

Woodpeckers 1.347 1.339 -0.008 0.164 0.870

Human-associated Birds 5.757 4.090 -1.667 4.340 3.65E-5

Wilson’s Warbler 1.307 1.282 -0.025 0.230 0.819

Savannah Sparrow 2.114 1.934 -0.180 1.150 0.262

Anna’s Hummingbird 1.278 1.244 -0.033 0.842 0.413

White-crowned Sparrow 2.066 1.732 -0.334 1.659 0.107

Orange-crowned Warbler 1.396 1.255 -0.141 1.273 0.211

Golden-crowned Kinglet 3.900 3.379 -0.521 1.723 0.089

Song Sparrow 2.093 1.923 -0.170 2.695 8.39E-3

TABLE 4Comparisons of measures of avian diversity and abundance before and after initiation of GSP habitat restoration work. Significantly different measures are in bold.

© D

OU

G SC

HU

RMA

N

White-crowned Sparrow

15

Species diversity, measured both as mean annual diversity

across survey points and as the average number of species

reported per-survey per-point, increased on average

by roughly one species per year after the initiation of

restoration. Although this increase fell just short of statistical

significance (p=0.06 per-survey, p=0.08 annual), the pattern

is compelling and should be followed in future assessments

of restoration impacts.

Overall, our assessment of the impact of GSP restoration

activities on avian communities is cautiously positive.

Observed declines in total bird counts (roughly 2 fewer

birds per survey) are explained mostly by declines in counts

of human-associated species, suggesting that restoration

activities are, as intended, returning habitats to a more

“natural” state less conducive to occupation by common

urban birds. The consistent pattern of decline in abundance

across species groups and focal species is somewhat worrying,

but likely reflects the ongoing disturbance caused by active

work on a site as well as the time lag between establishment

of native habitats in a restored area and establishment of bird

populations using that habitat. Because most GSP restoration

projects in the NBP study area were started in 2007 or

later, very few zones have “completed” restoration. Thus

our assessment provides a snapshot of the impact of active

restoration on bird communities during a transitional phase

in habitat quality. As more restoration zones are completed,

we expect that patterns of increasing species diversity will

continue, while patterns of declining abundance among non-

human-associated species will level off; however, continued

long-term monitoring will be necessary to assess these trends

and make concrete recommendations for future restoration

activity planning.

PRE- RESTORATION MEAN

ONGOING RESTORATION MEAN

DIFFERENCE t p

Per-survey Species Diversity 5.126 5.307 0.181 1.883 0.063

Annual Species Diversity 6.998 7.966 0.968 1.757 0.082

Total Birds 17.123 14.898 -2.225 3.913 1.75E-4

Riparian Birds 2.175 2.018 -0.157 2.368 0.020

Invasive Species 9.499 7.524 -1.975 1.314 0.195

Warblers 2.000 1.908 -0.093 0.329 0.743

Woodpeckers 1.347 1.339 -0.008 0.164 0.870

Human-associated Birds 5.757 4.090 -1.667 4.340 3.65E-5

Wilson’s Warbler 1.307 1.282 -0.025 0.230 0.819

Savannah Sparrow 2.114 1.934 -0.180 1.150 0.262

Anna’s Hummingbird 1.278 1.244 -0.033 0.842 0.413

White-crowned Sparrow 2.066 1.732 -0.334 1.659 0.107

Orange-crowned Warbler 1.396 1.255 -0.141 1.273 0.211

Golden-crowned Kinglet 3.900 3.379 -0.521 1.723 0.089

Song Sparrow 2.093 1.923 -0.170 2.695 8.39E-3

Left: Neighborhood Bird Project observations are recorded on data sheets, which are then entered into a database for later analysis. Right: A group of NBP volunteers identify birds using binoculars while surveying at Magnuson Park.

Magnuson Park Wetlands RestorationFrom 2008 to 2011, Seattle City Parks undertook a large-

scale habitat restoration project in Magnuson Park to

remove invasive plants and hugely expand a complex of

wetlands on the southern half of the park. This habitat

restoration effort was much larger in scale than typical GSP

sites assessed earlier in this report, encompassing an area

over 14 acres and costing over $3 million. Because NBP data

collection in Magnuson Park began prior to the restoration

and continued both during and post-construction, data

from this site allows us to view how bird communities

respond to restoration projects both during and after heavy

construction. Because construction activities and changed

topographies required some survey points to move, these

data should be viewed as somewhat less conclusive than

those from other NBP survey points, but the patterns

observed are instructive and can help inform our view of

how avian communities may respond to the end of work

on the many smaller GSP restoration sites assessed here.

Counts of riparian birds were relatively constant from the

beginning of data collection in 1998 through 2006, when

they experienced a slight decline. This decline persisted

through the end of active construction in 2011, when

riparian bird counts rebounded to roughly 50% above their

pre-restoration baseline. Since 2011, frequency of riparian

birds has been higher than in any year prior to the initiation

of restoration. Meanwhile, abundance of human-associated

species and invasive species has declined consistently since

the beginning of data collection, reaching a minimum during

the active construction phase and since maintaining relatively

constant levels (though note that early results from 2014

surveys suggest a rebound in populations; Figure 9).

These patterns are encouraging early news for the success of

this large project in increasing the abundance and diversity

of native wildlife in Magnuson Park. The data also align

well with standard expectations of progress in restoration

projects, in which the highly visible short-term costs of

large-scale construction to local wildlife are balanced by

a long-term increase in abundance and diversity. Indeed, the

speed with which riparian bird counts rebounded following

construction – riparian bird frequency reached its maximum

A citizen science volunteer points out waterfowl which will be recorded at part of the Neighborhood Bird Project at Golden Gardens Park.

© TIM

BOYER

17

2

4

6

2000 2005 2010

YEAR

DE

TE

CT

ION

S/S

UR

VE

Y

Mean Per-survey Abundance – Magnuson Park

INVASIVE SPECIES

FIGURE 9Species group abundance in Magnuson Park. Active constructions on the wetlands ran from 2008 to early 2011.

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

2000 2005 2010

YEAR

DE

TE

CT

ION

S/S

UR

VE

Y

Mean Per-survey Abundance – Magnuson Park

RIPARIAN SPECIES

recorded level in the same year that heavy construction

ended on the site – is surprising, and suggests that some

of this increase in local abundance is the result of shifting

populations from surrounding lower-quality habitats outside

the park rather than an increase in the absolute number of

riparian birds in the region, though an increase in available

habitat should increase regional populations over the

medium and long-term.

Viewing the observed trends in bird abundance and diversity

around the smaller GSP restoration sites in the context of

the Magnuson Park data, an optimistic interpretation would

suggest that the observed declines in abundance across

species near GSP sites are temporary and will be replaced

by higher counts once restoration work is complete and

sites are allowed time undisturbed for wildlife to discover

the new habitats. The trends observed here also point to

the critical role of long-term data collection in assessing the

impact of restoration activities. In the case of Magnuson

Park, this assessment of the response of avian communities

was possible only because NBP’s volunteer surveys in the

pre-restoration years had established a baseline level of

bird abundance and diversity against which to compare the

mid- and post-construction figures. NBP surveys to date

have provided a similar baseline for many of the smaller

GSP restoration sites and some early figures for in-progress

sites are analyzed here, but assessment of overall restoration

impacts will require continued data collection both through

the active work phase (currently in progress in nearly all

zones assessed) and after the completion of active work.

Western Grebe

© D

OU

G SC

HU

RMA

N

Black-capped Chickadee

Song Sparrow

© D

OU

G SC

HU

RMA

N

© D

OU

G SC

HU

RMA

N

Red Crossbill

Cedar Waxwing

© D

OU

G SC

HU

RMA

N©

DO

UG

SCH

URM

AN

19

Recommendations and ConclusionsAs summarized in this report, the Neighborhood Bird Project

has been successful in recording broad-scale trends in avian

diversity and abundance in Seattle City Parks over its 17-year

lifespan. Fueled by the efforts of over 330 dedicated volunteers,

the program has provided an all-too-rare opportunity

for community members to contribute meaningfully to

science-based conservation and restoration projects in their

own neighborhoods. With the growing interest in habitat

restoration and its near-ubiquity across managed parklands

in the Seattle area, long-term monitoring efforts like the NBP

are also the most cost-effective way to gather the data necessary

to make informed decisions about the management of some

of our most heavily used public lands.

In order to maintain the integrity of the existing NBP dataset

and to maximize its utility in future analyses, several modest

improvements to survey methodology and design should

be considered. First, although a partial distance- sampling

protocol limiting observations to a 50m radius is included

in the current NBP protocol, additional training or field

protocols designed to ensure that surveys are limited to

recording birds within 50m of an observation point should be

implemented, to maintain the collection of high quality data

over time by volunteers. The simplest measure available here

would be to place flagging or otherwise visibly mark objects

50m from each observation point to give surveyors a frame

of reference. Full distance sampling – the standard approach

for professional avian point counts – involves recording the

distance and direction to each individual bird recorded, but

given the lack of this data for previous years and the difficulty

of correctly locating and estimating distance to a bird detected

only by sound without prior training, we do not recommend

adopting this approach at this time.

Survey teams should also make every effort to avoid moving

survey point locations, and should provide any new or

moved point locations with new names rather than reusing

the old ones. Although most survey points have remained in

a single location throughout the period of data collection,

construction, changes in topography, and changes in

personnel over the years have all occasionally resulted in a

point shifting location or being retired. Maintaining survey

points in their historic locations for as long as possible

will maximize the comparability of data across years, and

keeping accurate records of locations is crucial to drawing

any conclusions as to differences in bird community traits

across landscapes.

Finally, the question of equality of effort between different

surveyors is a constant worry both in volunteer and

professionally conducted bird surveys. People with differing

Pileated Woodpecker

Bottom left: Many of the surveys for the Neighborhood Bird Project rely on “birding-by-ear” – identifying birds by their call only. A volunteer at Golden Gardens Park identifies birds by listening for calls.

© TIM

BOYER

© D

OU

G SC

HU

RMA

N

20

levels of familiarity with local birdsong, auditory capacity,

visual acuity, and experience as a point counter can record

very different numbers of birds in a given area, and over time

these differences in surveyor ability can skew interpretation

of the data. Although guaranteeing complete equality of

ability between survey teams will never be possible for

volunteer programs like the NBP, park leaders should do

their best to ensure that all survey teams working on a given

day are of roughly comparable ability. The most practical

way to implement this recommendation is to ensure that

each survey team has at least one member capable of birding

by ear and identifying nearly all the birdsong heard during

a point count on every survey.

Turning to the trends in avian abundance and diversity

documented in this report, we find grounds for cautious

optimism as to the status of avian communities in Seattle

City Parks. Both invasive species and human-associated

species show long-term declines in abundance across all

parks surveyed. Meanwhile, riparian birds, woodpeckers, and

warblers - all groups that do well in native vegetation and are

relatively scarce in the surrounding urban environments –

are either increasing or holding steady in average abundance.

Species-specific trends such as the marked decline in Savannah

Sparrow abundance in Discovery Park point to the continued

need for monitoring and adaptive management across

the parks, and suggest that NBP data may provide useful

information for land managers seeking to balance the needs

of recreation and wildlife in the parks.

NBP data has also provided useful measures of the impacts

of habitat restoration projects on avian communities. In

Magnuson Park, a 14-acre wetland restoration project appears

to have resulted in a marked increase in riparian bird abun-

dance and coincides with the continued decline in abundance

of invasive and human-associated species – both positive

signs. Early observations from the many GSP restoration

zones covering most of the parks included in the NBP dataset

are more equivocal – diversity is slightly up, while abundance

is down across the board. These declines in abundance may

represent temporary impacts from active construction as

were documented at Magnuson Park from 2008-2011, but

long-term monitoring of GSP sites post-restoration will be

necessary to draw better conclusions. The increases in species

diversity, meanwhile, suggest that restoration has been

modestly successful at introducing new habitat diversity to

our parks. The trend should be watched carefully in the future.

Volunteers conduct surveys in all weather, here looking across the Puget Sound for waterfowl towards Bainbridge Island during a survey at Discovery Park.

Bottom right: Citizen science volunteer using binoculars to identify and count birds for the Neighborhood Bird Project at Magnuson Park.

© TIM

BOYER

Mew Gull

© TIM

BOYER

© D

OU

G SC

HU

RMA

N©

TIM BO

YER

Belted Kingfisher

© TIM

BOYER

± 0 0.55 1.10.275 Miles

± 0 500250 Meters

NBP PointsTotal Species Richness

19 - 2627 - 3536 - 4142 - 4748 - 5253 - 5657 - 61

62 - 66

67 - 72

73 - 80

GSP Restoration ZonesPhase

1234

± 0 0.55 1.10.275 Miles

± 0 500250 Meters

NBP PointsTotal Species Richness

19 - 2627 - 3536 - 4142 - 4748 - 5253 - 5657 - 61

62 - 66

67 - 72

73 - 80

GSP Restoration ZonesPhase

1234

Golden Gardens NBP/GSP Zones

Carkeek Park NBP/GSP Zones

22

APPENDIX

± 0 0.6 1.20.3 Miles

± 0 500250 Meters

NBP PointsTotal Species Richness

19 - 2627 - 3536 - 4142 - 4748 - 5253 - 5657 - 61

62 - 66

67 - 72

73 - 80

GSP Restoration ZonesPhase

1234

± 0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles

± 0 500250 Meters

NBP PointsTotal Species Richness

19 - 2627 - 3536 - 4142 - 4748 - 5253 - 5657 - 61

62 - 66

67 - 72

73 - 80

GSP Restoration ZonesPhase

1234

Discovery Park NBP/GSP Zones

Magnuson Park NBP/GSP Zones

23

APPENDIX

24

This analysis was generously funded by the

Sustainable Path Foundation who have a long

history of supporting science based projects in

the Puget Sound region.

The habitat data and work logs used through–

out the analyses in this report were kindly

provided by the Green Seattle Partnership and

are based on thousands of hours of restoration

work, often conducted by volunteers.

The Neighborhood Bird Project was conceived,

developed and is managed by the Seattle

Audubon Society. However, data collection relies

exclusively on the hard work and expertise of

more than 330 volunteer birdwatchers who have

dedicated over 1300 hours to collecting data

since the project’s inception in 1994. To the

right is a list of the (332 to date) volunteers

who have taken part in the survey since 1994.

Abby LarsonAdam SedgleyAl FerkovichAlan GrenonAlice ArnoldAllisa CarlsonAlyssa SampsonAmy StevensonAndres OrtizAndrew McCormickAnn HurseyAnn ZavitkovskyAnna KopitovAnna MartinAnne BellAnne ChafeeAnne JacobsAnne McCaffreyArn SlettebakArt EashBarbara BlairBarbara BroderickBarbara DeihlBarbara RetzlaffBarbara SchnabelBarbara WattsBarbara WebsterBecky BentonBecky GallowayBerl NussbaumBernard MartellBert DudleyBeth EtscheidBianca LiebhaberBill BennettBill BogueBill ByersBill ShumwayBo McFaddenBob BentonBob ClelandBobby PearsonBrandon Mathey

Brenda SenturiaBrett McCallumBrian EtscheidBrid Nowlan Bryony AngellCarl HaynieCarleen ZimmermanCarmine PascucciCarmine VincenzoCarole WalesCarolee ColterCaroline CappelloCathy NolanCharlene FerkovichCharles CrowCharles KahleCharlie CookCharlotte ByersCheryl McArthurCheryl PettersonChris KarrenbergChristi Norman Christine AlbrightChristine GallegosColene McKeeCollin VassalloCrystal GregoryCurtis PearsonCynthia WilsonDan ClarkDan HarvilleDaniel MelamedDarby LangdonDasha GudalewiczDarren CurtisDarwin LonsoDasha GudalewiczDavid HeppDavid SaundersDavid WhittenDeborah DowdDiana SorusDiane Doles

Donald FieneDonna LuceDonna SchaefferEileen BryantElaine BoehmerElaine ChuangElaine MagnussonElissa OstergaardElizabeth AddisElizabeth OriansElizabeth VincentEmily CarterEmily FalesEmily MandelbaumEric CarlsonEric WagnerEric WardErica ClarkEsther NeeserEthan CollinsEtta CoseyEvan HodderEzra ParkerFelice LevyFiona CohenFrank Montgomery Fred RowleyFredianne GrayGary KelsbergGene HunnGeorge RitchotteGeorgia BrittGeorgia ContiGiles PettiforGilia AngellNoel Angell Gina WhiteGordon OriansGretchen FetscherGwynneth HarrisHelen CrawfordHelen GilbertHelen Murphy

Acknowledgements

Scientific Guidance

Eric Ward

Rob Faucett

Design

Lorie Ransom, Tiny Whaletinywhalecreative.com

Photography

Tim Boyertimboyerphotography.com

Doug Schurmanflickr.com/photos/seattlebirdman

Tom Sanders

We attempted to capture everyone’s name who has contributed in some way to the success of the Neighborhood Bird Project, if however, we’ve not listed your name here, we apologize and would love to hear from you.

25

Helen RossHelle Bielefeldt-

OhmannHenry NobleHerb CurlJack PauwJackson BarnesJames NicholsJan BraggJan HarvilleJan LewinsohnJane HedbergJane JohnsonJanice WagnerJay Donald OstrowJeanelle RichardsonJeannie Murphy-

OuelletteJeff BryantJeff NystuenJen KunitsuguJennifer KauffmanJennifer McDonaldJennifer RikerJenny RapuzziJessica KindredJessica PiaseckeJessica SimmonsJim ThomasJoan OstendorfJoe AndertonJoe MilesJoe SweeneyJohn MurtfeldtJohn PauwJohn TubbsJohnathan BritellJoLinda FinneJon WoodardJoyce MotyJulia AllenJulia BentJulie Monahan

Justine BusseKaren AdairKaren StephensKathryn MilburnKathy PstrakKathy SlettebakKatie BarndtKen PennerKent KoprowiczKent SlavenKevin CastleKimberly McDonaldKristin Johnson-

WaggonerKristin MarshallLaura AppellLaura LiptonLaurie Ann DudleyLee BarnesLen MandelbaumLibby FieneLinda CarpenderLinda MurtfeldtLinda OswaldLinda PhillipsLinda TotleLindsey EdwardsLisa MooreLiz BellLois JohnsonLorraine HartmannLouise MartellLynne SmithMaeve LambertMamie BolenderMarcia KaminMarcia StoneMarianne BakerMarilyn SandallMarina SkumanichMark JohnsonMark SalvadalenaMark Wolff

Martha DavisMartha NesterMartha TaylorMarti LoutherMarty FarrimondMarvin BreeceMary Ann SolteszMary Anne ThorbeckMary RobertsMary UllrichMary VincentMatt BartelsMatt JensenMaureen McKelveyMaureen TraxlerMaurie KirschnerMayumi TsuruMerrill DavisonMia SpangenbergMichael CarsiotisMichael FlemingMichael WitterMichele HerzbergMickey RileyMike DermondMike FreundMira LambMiriam GrayMonya NoelkeNancy EdmondsonNancy PearsonNate StarlingNathan BurkemooreNathan SmithNeil ZimmermanPam CahnPat BredouwPat JohnsonPat LittlePatricia HughesPatricia NorthPatricia SandersPatti Brandt

Paul MeijerPaul WebsterPaula CrockettPenny BoltonPenny RosePeter DunwiddiePeter MannPhilip MagasichPhyllis MossPolly RadebaughRachel LawsonRaelene GoldRandolph SchnabelRandy SchnabelRebecca CahallRebecca EvansRene Koval-HuenuqueoRichard YouelRita CondonRob FaucettRobert SchmidtRoberta RobertsRoger OlstadRoland KilcherRon LeamonRonald PaigeRuby BurkemooreRuss KurtzRuth MynarRuth TaylorSage Gerow MillerSam WoodsSarah PedenSarah SafranekScott BerglundScott HoskinScott RamosShantel GnewuchSharon AllerSharon EllardShiva ParameswaranSpencer HildieStephanie Burkemoore

Stephanie DurmanStephen CassSteve DangSteve ElstonSteve GerstleSue YatesSusie StillmanSuzanne HunterTara MarinoTed SmithTemma PistrangTeri MartineTerry FarrisTerry SissonTiffany LinboTina CohenTom WeirToni PotterTor LinboTracee GeernaertTravis KeayTrisha TubbsV. Linda TofleVirginia BoundWallis BolzWendy CrokerWendy WalshWilliam DenzelWilliam ShumwayWoody WheelerZoa Shumway

How you can help!Please consider donating to Seattle Audubon to ensure the continuation of projects like these. More details at www.seattleaudubon.org.

If you’re interested in joining one of the avian survey teams, contact the Science Manager at science@seattleaudubon.org and learn more about the project at www.seattleaudubon.org.

Acknowledgements

© TIM

BOYER

26

50

75

100

125

150

SURVEYOR

SP

EC

IES

OB

SE

RV

ED

80

100

120

SPECIES

NBP All Stars

Cynt

hia W

ilson

Jan

Brag

gPe

nny R

ose

Richa

rd Y

ouel

Dan H

arvil

le

Scot

t Hos

kin

Rach

el La

wson

Char

les K

ahle

Sam

Woo

ds

Anne

Cha

fee

Jeff

Nystu

enJo

e Mile

s

Eilee

n Br

yant

Herb

Curl

Neil Z

imm

erm

an

Helen

Gilber

t

G. Par

ames

waran

Ron

Leam

on

Barb

ara W

ebste

r

Fred

Rowley

Mar

tha T

aylo

rJo

hn Tu

bbs

Robe

rta R

ober

tsSt

eve D

ang

Tom

Weir

Russ

Kurtz

Arn

Slette

bak

Char

lotte

Bye

rs

Justi

ne B

usse

Kath

y Slet

teba

k

Alice

Arn

old

Carm

ine V

ince

nzo

Lisa M

oore

Barb

ara R

etzla

ff

Number of species observed by each volunteer surveyor from 1997-2014, limited to those who have observed 60+ species.

27

About the AuthorsC.J. Battey

Doctoral candidate at the Burke Museum of Natural History

CJ’s main area of research involves systematics of

new-world birds and the genetic control of migration

in North American hummingbirds.

Toby Ross

Science Manager, Seattle Audubon

Toby manages and coordinates Seattle Audubon’s three

major Citizen Science projects, one of which is the

Neighborhood Bird Project.

Seattle Audubon Society was founded in 1916 and is the

oldest environmental organization in the state of Washington.

Our mission is to cultivate and lead a community that

values and protects birds and the natural environment. With

approximately 5,000 members, we are one of the largest and

most active Audubon chapters in the country. While legally

separate organizations, we work closely with the 25 other

local Audubon chapters in Washington state and with the

state office of the National Audubon Society. Our program

work seeks to connect people to birds and nature through

environmental education, conservation advocacy, and

citizen science projects. Volunteers are at the core of Seattle

Audubon, with more than 600 dedicated, talented individuals

contributing over 30,000 hours of service every year.

A professional staff of 12 provides expertise and coordination

for our program activities, working closely with our members

and partner organizations.

Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture

was founded in 1885. It is the oldest public museum in

Washington and is a research- and collections-based museum

with 16 million objects in its collections. The Burke Museum’s

Ornithology Collections exist primarily to inspire discovery.

They generate new questions and provide data for testing

ideas. The collections include: 41,000 study skins; 26,000

spread wings (the largest such collection in the world);

17,700 bird skeletons; 3,100 egg sets; and 26,000 avian

tissues (the world’s second largest collection). These bird

specimens are used for teaching, research, and art.

Recommended CitationBattey, C.J. and T. Ross. 2014. Impacts of Habitat

Restoration and the Status of Avian Communities

in Seattle City Parks. A Technical Report by the

Seattle Audubon Society.

Front cover: Golden-crowned Sparrow ©Doug Schurman

FPO